It categorically includes every valid Member vote, regardless of how it was cast.

One Member (eligible to vote), one vote. Votes can be cast in person at the AGM or by proxy. Proxy votes can be via the Chair or any other person attending. Proxy votes can be either directed or undirected. Every single Member vote, regardless of the way it is cast, is equal. There is no difference between them.

ERS stopped reporting a breakdown of the manner in which votes were cast in 2017. Good decision IMO.

If say 800 voted for a motion and say 200 voted against, and the Chairs vote counted as 1200 against, it would be lost by 1400 v 800.

However, delegating the Chair to vote for a member is easy with a tick box. All other proxy votes would need the person - member to contact the proxy and ask if they will be attending and they may not even know who will be attending or who to ask. So the system is bias to favouring the Chair to gain proxy votes. If this makes much difference is open to speculation. With less than 4% of members voting, it is probably the case most members are not that bothered either way, perhaps. Apart from no 5 motion others seem standard procedures and number 5 was not much to do with cycling issues. I do see that any of the motions were about cycling issues.

Steady rider wrote:If say 800 voted for a motion and say 200 voted against, and the Chairs vote counted as 1200 against, it would be lost by 1400 v 800.

However, delegating the Chair to vote for a member is easy with a tick box. All other proxy votes would need the person - member to contact the proxy and ask if they will be attending and they may not even know who will be attending or who to ask. So the system is bias to favouring the Chair to gain proxy votes. If this makes much difference is open to speculation. With less than 4% of members voting, it is probably the case most members are not that bothered either way, perhaps. Apart from no 5 motion others seem standard procedures and number 5 was not much to do with cycling issues. I do see that any of the motions were about cycling issues.

Abso-flippin'-lutely steady rider - I've been saying that on these threads for years, although nowhere nearly as well put as you have. I submit that CTC would still be a club if only the votes of members who'd expressed their preference themselves in that matter had been counted. What's the point of voting then?

Well put Steady Rider.

(Please note that the highlighting in my quote of steady rider's post is mine).

In the pre-charity days, the CTC chair(man) was elected in elections where candidates were able to publish a mini manifesto. It seems reasonable to me to assume that the successful candidate had the support of a majority of the membership who voted. It also seems understandable to me that having elected him to the office, they trusted his judgment, including things like acting as a proxy.

In the pre-charity days, the CTC chair(man) was elected in elections where candidates were able to publish a mini manifesto. It seems reasonable to me to assume that the successful candidate had the support of a majority of the membership who voted. It also seems understandable to me that having elected him to the office, they trusted his judgment, including things like acting as a proxy.

Anyway, it's history.

Part of the issue is members may not like to oppose the Chairman view because they do not wish to oppose someone they feel will be acting in the clubs best interest. This in turn means whatever the merits of an issue the Chairman has an advantaged perhaps. The overall result is published but not the breakdown as previously published. Continuing to show a bias towards the Chair. The meeting did not have one proper cycling issue to discuss, classified out of order motions properly submitted. A new Chair may bring a better outcome for cycling.

In the pre-charity days, the CTC chair(man) was elected in elections where candidates were able to publish a mini manifesto. It seems reasonable to me to assume that the successful candidate had the support of a majority of the membership who voted. It also seems understandable to me that having elected him to the office, they trusted his judgment, including things like acting as a proxy.

Anyway, it's history.

Part of the issue is members may not like to oppose the Chairman view because they do not wish to oppose someone they feel will be acting in the clubs best interest. This in turn means whatever the merits of an issue the Chairman has an advantaged perhaps. The overall result is published but not the breakdown as previously published. Continuing to show a bias towards the Chair. The meeting did not have one proper cycling issue to discuss, classified out of order motions properly submitted. A new Chair may bring a better outcome for cycling.

If this was something like a soccer match, disgruntled people might grumble about the referee, possibly with good reason.

The elected chair of an organisation comes with policies, unless they stand on one ticket then switch to another. What we had at the head of the CTC for some time was "Charity means charity" and nobody could have been in any doubt about that. That was all run under the rules of a company limited by guarantee.

The last bit's important because unlike other limited companies, members haven't a big financial interest invested. I make this point because if the shareholder in a company doesn't like the way it's being run they can ditch their shares. With something like the CTC the members' interests are less tangible and they certainly don't have money invested. They did, however agree to subordinate their own interests for the wider benefit of society as a whole. Altruism is the basis of charity in this context.

For whatever reason, the voting membership voted for the conversion. Charity status involves the role of trustees which, as far as I can see legally overrides just about everything else in the running of the organisation.

I spoke out against the conversion on here and voted against, but I accepted the result. My own charitable causes are elsewhere so I didn't renew my CTC membership.

thirdcrank wrote:...........Charity status involves the role of trustees which, as far as I can see legally overrides just about everything else in the running of the organisation...............

Well absolutely tc - so what's the point of voting?

I've remained a member because our Section retains a family feel (although in CTC proclamations, even the word 'section' became non-PC), and I'd miss those associations and friendships. However, CUK nationally is not 'This Great Family of Ours' that my own family encouraged me to join. Joining BC is not off my radar now, though.

JohnW wrote:... Well absolutely tc - so what's the point of voting? ...

I think that's a very fair question and one to which I have no answer in this context. It's not as though anyone can say that it's a hard-won right; on the contrary, it's one few members seem concerned about. I think it's worth noting that voting by the membership doesn't seem widespread in charities where the main choice is usually between supporting (stumping up) and quitting. Perhaps Cycling UK will go that way too.

The one thing that seems certain is that a return to the former set up is impossible.

JohnW wrote:... Well absolutely tc - so what's the point of voting? ...

I think it's worth noting that voting by the membership doesn't seem widespread in charities where the main choice is usually between supporting (stumping up) and quitting.

Also worth noting that voting within the CTC as was doesn't seem to have ever been widespread - I only have anecdote rather than data, but from those that were there I've heard stories about policies being made by a handful of members.It is all history, a lot of it with a rose tint. The charity conversion didn't come out of the blue, it was the end of a long running project to convert a members club to a cycling organisation. The assets had already been irreversibly transferred from club to charitable trust, a decision taken by the trusted councillors and I'm not aware of any consultation with the membership. IMO the merger with it then became little more than a bit of admin.